There is going to be an Israeli TV investigation show in the national news today, about the misleading way in which the British Interphone results were reported to the public. Reports all over the world quoted Reuters, and said that it was safe to use the phone for 10 years with no tumors, but the media didn't report the 80% increase after 10 years. Of course if tumors develop after 10 years it is evidence for damage that is done during the first 10 years, so something does happen during the first 10 years so that's very misleading to say that 10 years are "safe". This time it's not the media's fault. The researchers themselves didn't report accurately on their own findings to the media! The media also reported "no cancer risk" whereas the study was on benign tumors, it was a good PR for the companies. See here the english version of Haaretz newspaper on that.

The world's approximately 1 billion cellular telephone users received good news at the end of August: new research showed the devices did not increase the chance of cancer, even among those who used them for a decade or more. But the research included another part not reported in the press that experts have called "a warning light."

Among those who used cell phones for more than 10 years, the risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a nervous system tumor, was almost twice that of people who did not use them.

The good news was reported by hundreds of media outlets worldwide, including Haaretz. Cellular carriers could not have hoped for better PR: "Cell phones don't cause cancer!"

However, the press all relied on a press release penned by the researchers that did not include the worrisome findings.

Channel 2 reporter Chico Menashe uncovered the story, which will be reported today. Menashe, who reported the complete findings, said he began to look into the matter when Channel 2 newsroom staff began to wonder why his report differed from those published worldwide.

The findings do not unequivocally determine that cell phones are dangerous to health. According to the researchers, the study did not include enough subjects, and suffers from methodological weaknesses.

Scientists in four Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom conducted the research. It is part of a larger World Health Organization study involving scientists in 15 countries, including Israel. Some researchers began releasing the results of the studies in their own countries, including Professor Anthony Swerdlow's study published in the British Journal of Cancer. The scientific journal reported the entire findings; however, a press release only mentioned the "good news." The first to report the study was Reuters, a central news source for thousands of newspapers and television and radio stations. About 300 media outlets around the world picked up the story.

Dr. Sigal Sadetzki, who heads the Israeli team participating in the WHO study, says: "A 10-year study is insufficient to determine if cell phones increase the chances of cancer. Even the results of smoking are not evident in such a time period. To examine the effect of cell phones, 20 or even 40 years must be examined," she says.

"The results aren't strong enough for me to accept as a scientist," she explains. "On the other hand, they are a red warning light."

Swerdlow responded to a Haaretz email inquiry, explaining that the findings that suggest a connection between cellular use and morbidity were omitted from the press release in order to use language clear to the general public. "Press releases are inevitably compressed and simplified," Swerdlow writes. "The article gave full details of the research, and the press release included a link to the full results."

Sadetzki refrains from criticizing Swerdlow, but believes the entire findings should have appeared in the press release, with the requisite explanations and reservations. "A scientist can say `don't take these results as carved in stone,' but must publish complete findings. There's a difference between publishing partial findings and the interpretation of findings."

Soviet studies concluded decades ago - that any exposure to EMF has consequences that become irreversible AFTER 7 YEARS OF EXPOSURE.

ITS NOT THE RESEARCHER THAT MISINFORM - ITS THE MEDIA AND THE INDUSTRY THAT PUT SUCH SPIN ON RESEARCH RESULTS mostly not even mentioning them in the first place read what was on-line since 1995 - and the old EMF-L archives I posted those finding then and warned about the long term fall out but even in that forum this FACTfrom research was belittled by Roy Beavers then simple because it was from the "old enemy" and could not be right.

The future will show how much "irreversible" damage has been done finally some take notice - maybe too late already.

Hate to say - told you so - that long ago.

Greetings

Wolfgang

--------

Yes that's true, but in this SINGLE time, the reason for the bias was an email written by the researchers themselves. The media reported exactly the words of that email, and the email itself did not report on the accurate findings.